(Trinidad Express) Star Sabga wept when she was told the Preventive Detention Order (PDO) against her had been revoked, her attorney, Faris Al-Rawi, said yesterday.
He said she cried because she was relieved after being released from house arrest.
“She cried. Some of those tears were relief. Some of them were disbelief. Some of them were just…emotion,” Al-Rawi said during a news conference yesterday at Altus Court, Abercromby Street, Port of Spain.He also said she regretted the statements she made about the Prime Minister.
He said Sabga was overwhelmed when she saw members of her family come to her and walk into her living room at Regents Towers, Westmoorings.
The 69-year-old cheese maker was detained since June 26 under a PDO. Her detention ended yesterday after Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander revoked the order.
Al-Rawi said the revocation order was delivered to Sabga by members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) at 10.15 a.m. and that he received it with her.
She was then released and was “officially back into private life”, he said.
Al-Rawi said Sabga was still dealing with what had happened to her, and that it would take time for her to adjust to being at home without the restrictions imposed during her detention.
“Ms Sabga is in a mix of emotions, and it’s going to take a while for her to come to the reality that she can lock her front door, that she can lock her bedroom door and not expect somebody to walk in and do a check at 4 a.m. in the morning while she’s asleep or 12 o’clock midnight,” he said.
Sabga had previously been placed under home detention after spending several weeks in prison.
From July 23 until yesterday, Al-Rawi said she had been allowed only two 15-minute family visits and had spent no time outside the apartment.
He said she had also been unable to earn an income from making cheese.
No intent to cause harm
Al-Rawi also addressed an affidavit filed by Sabga concerning a voice recording which featured in the detention proceedings and public discussion surrounding the case.
He said Sabga had explained in the affidavit what she had said during a conversation with her niece Genevieve Hadeed and the context in which she had made the remarks.
According to Al-Rawi, Sabga believed the conversation was private and had been expressing frustration about the direction in which the country was heading, with reference to events in 1970 and 1990.
He said she denied making threats or intending to cause harm, and had expressed regret for using a racial slur.
“She was referring to something historical that I wouldn’t go into in much detail, but suffice it to say, she’s very plain in her apology,” Al-Rawi said.
He said Sabga had made it clear that she had never threatened, and would never threaten or cause harm to anyone, including members of the Government.
The revocation of the PDO did not bring an end to the legal proceedings involving Sabga and Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed.
Two High Court matters remained before the court, involving applications for judicial review and constitutional claims arising from the decisions taken against them.
The claims included challenges to the issuing and execution of warrants and PDOs, the interception of communications and alleged breaches of constitutional rights, including the right to liberty, equality of treatment, protection of the law and private life.
The proceedings also sought declarations and damages.
Al-Rawi said the State’s appeal against the decision allowing Sabga to remain under home detention was also now in question following the revocation of the PDO.
He said the legal issues surrounding the cases remained to be determined by the courts and could ultimately reach the Privy Council.
Al-Rawi said the cases raised issues beyond the three individuals, including the use of powers during a state of emergency.
He said the legal team was challenging Section 6(2)(b) of the Interception of Communications Act, which allowed the Commissioner of Police, Chief of Defence Staff and head of the Strategic Services Agency to request the interception of communications without a warrant.
The defence contended that the provision was unconstitutional because it lacked safeguards available under another section of the legislation requiring a warrant process before a judge.
Al-Rawi said the State’s evidence indicated the interception relied upon in the detention proceedings occurred on June 11, while the warrant to intercept was requested and granted between June 18 and June 24.
He said the State had placed 13 audio clips before the court, and the defence disputed the manner in which statements in the recordings had been attributed to the Hadeeds and Sabga.
Al-Rawi said a June 11 telephone conversation between Sabga and her niece was central to the detention orders.
He said the words attributed to Mr and Mrs Hadeed in their PDOs “simply never happened”, while Sabga’s words had been made in a different context from that presented by the State.
He said those matters would form part of the constitutional and judicial review challenges.
Despite the continuing legal dispute, Al-Rawi said his clients did not want a confrontation with the Government or the TTPS.
“They don’t want a war with Government. They don’t want a war with the TTPS. They want their good names restored,” he said.
Discussion